I've read all the discussion : very insteresting! (though it didn't solve my doubts). However I have a doubt with a part(see underlined text) of one of the messages of the thread:

Re: future in the pastHi there Moodywop!

You raised some valid and interesting points about equivalence of present and past forms of conditional statements in Italian. I take it that having said that the past conditional in Italian is ambiguous, you suggest (from referring to Practical English Usage) that the same may be true for English as well (in reported speech).

I’ve thought about this over the last few hours and have come to realise that language is really so complex and defies easy categorisation! Anyway, my opinion on the issue you raised would be both yes and no – it depends.

I do agree with the slant given by Isp re “when we meet”. It does depend on the time frame the speaker is referring to. But to take the simplest case, for your example, “she said if she had any money she would buy me a drink” this is true. There is in effect no real difference for reported speech. This happens because of the word “said”, which “compresses” the past retrospectively. When using direct speech there is a difference because one is dealing with the moment of thought (I would buy you a drink – it’s open ended) and the other with a moment just completed or resolved (I would have bought you a drink – it’s now closed). In reported speech the distinction between the two blurs due to both being in the past and therefore now closed.

For either direct or reported speech you can even use a hybrid form– “She said if she had any money she would have bought me a drink.” If the hybrid is used it is also equivalent to the standard reported form.If I had any money I would have bought = If I’d had any money I would have bought

I believe this equivalence is due to the dependent conditional clause dominating the sentence, whereas the independent subjunctive clause (If I had) is vague or more freeform. I’m not an English guru, but I suggest this might have occurred due to a drift in expressing subjunctive mood. Although a subjunctive conjugation has almost vanished in English now, the mood itself still exists, but it represented by several forms viz.If I had = Had I = Were I to have (present subjunctive)

If I’d had = Had I had = Were I to have had (past subjunctive)

If I’d had (past subjunctive) can be substituted with If I had (present subjunctive) if the former is being used to describe a very recent past moment in time (eg the party is breaking up and the participants are about to leave or have just left the pub). Not enough time has elapsed for the condition of “not having enough money” to have changed, so the present subjunctive is applied to the just completed past as well. However later, when a longer time has elapsed it is better to say If I’d had because the status of my cash-in-hand may well be different.

Now consider the following sentences,

1. She eyed the journalist across the table and thought blithely that if she had the money she would buy him a drink.

2. She eyed the journalist across the table and thought blithely that if she’d had the money she would have bought him a drink.

Although this example is similar to the one above the two sentences convey a subtle but distinct difference in meaning. This is because it is not reported speech, but 3rd person narrative. There is a greater sense of immediacy here, as if we are in the mind of the woman, and so the open-ended vs. closed distinction is preserved, just as in direct speech.

Now I’ll just add one more comment to the Romeo/Juliet discussion, then I’ll stop! The sentence “He gave her a potion that would put her to sleep” is different from the examples above because the qualifying clause is not conditional and the main clause is not subjunctive. There is a definite cause and effect with no doubt involved. So in this case the adjectival clause that would put her to sleep is purely future in the past. It is interesting to me that Italian uses the conditional form for this. Thanks again for pointing that out.

Andy

Click to expand...

In fact I would say, using a 3rd conditional with a future in the past in it:

If I had had any money I would buy it = Se avessi avuto i soldi lo avrei comprato.

I've read all the discussion : very insteresting! (though it didn't solve my doubts). However I have a doubt with a part(see underlined text) of one of the messages of the thread:

In fact I would say, using a 3rd conditional with a future in the past in it:

If I had had any money I would buy it = Se avessi avuto i soldi lo avrei comprato.

Tell me if I'm correct

Click to expand...

To my mind there is no future in the past here. If I had had enough money back then I would have bought it back then.

By the way, I don't think "consecutio temporum" is a useful concept here.

For some reason many learners are puzzled by what grammarians call "mixed" types of conditional sentences (periodi ipotetici). I don't understand why - they make perfect sense and are common in both Italian and English:

If my mother hadn't knocked my father off his bicycle thirty years ago, I wouldn't be here now
(example from M Swan Practical English Usage OUP)

Most Italian kids are only taught the three "classical" periodi ipotetici. So, when they see a hybrid like Swan's example they are baffled or assume it's wrong (it's not!).
It's a mix of so-called "second-type" and "third-type" periodi ipotetici.

Uinni, how would you distinguish between if I had the money (needed) to buy it, and if I had any money (at all)... I would have bought it?

Click to expand...

Exactly in the way I have just told you. The former "se avessi i soldi"; the latter "se avessi soldi"... But I was afraid that your correction was an absolute one (because I expected you would have corrected the Italian version, not the original English one )

Sorry, it is the second time you tell me I am mispelling your name. I am really sorry but I cannot promise I won't do this error again for I am afraid a deep mnestic track is carved in my brain where your nick is "ISP"

Exactly in the way I have just told you. The former "se avessi i soldi"; the latter "se avessi soldi"... But I was afraid that your correction was an absolute one (because I expected you would have corrected the Italian version, not the original English one )

Click to expand...

We're on the same track, I think. I corrected the English because there was the other correction to be made to it.

Sorry, it is the second time you tell me I am mispelling your name. I am really sorry but I cannot promise I won't do this error again for I am afraid a deep mnestic track is carved in my brain where your nick is "ISP"

Click to expand...

No problem, I have to answer to both around here, and I'm used to it (you're not the only one)! Every once in a while I remind a WR veteran like you... , L

You could say, It would have been an error to have accused him, so I didn't. Or better, to my ears anyway, It would have been a mistake to have accused him, so I didn't.

This is a correct but clunky construction at best.

Click to expand...

I don't think the meaning will be the same. What I meant to say was:
It would have been an error the fact (that) I would eventually accuse him, so I didn’t. = sarebbe stato un errore il fatto che lo avrei accusato successivamente
E' corretta o dovevo dire "I would eventually have accused him" ?

First a fair warning. I am not an English professor so I may be wrong in what I am expressing below.

On a new thread called “when I left” we stumbled onto a concept called future in the past and below I am copying part of my last message on the “when I left” thread..QuoteI read the “Future in the Past “ link and it did not convince such a construction (future in the past) exists in English.

First few posts confused would as Present conditional with Past Indicative 1st example. I will go/He said he would go if you substitute will/would for want then it is clear. I want to go/He said he wanted to go.

2nd example One day he would go on to become the greatest statesman in British historyAgain substitute would go on to become with simply the verb become which in Past indicative = became.

Then the thread goes on to give examples of Periodo Ipotetico which are really expressions handled very similarly in English and Italian but are not really future in the past examples since they deal with different kinds of reality.

3rd example is really a Periodo Ipotetico phrase.It would have been (past conditional) an error the fact (that) I would (past conjunctive – substitute would with wanted to, thought of) accuse him, so I didn’t.If you change the wording the fact that to to the fact if it becomes clear it is Periodo Ipotetico. Unquote

PS To Matar0 original question. In my opinion you can say and be marginally correct saying either would accuse (wanted to accuse) or would have accused (wanted to have accused) but the best (sounding most natural) is: It would have been an error if I had accused him, so I didn't.

Hello,
"To Matar0 original question. In my opinion you can say and be marginally correct saying either would accuse (wanted to accuse) or would have accused (wanted to have accused) but the best (sounding most natural) is: It would have been anerror if I had accused him, so I didn't."....

Hello,
"To Matar0 original question. In my opinion you can say and be marginally correct saying either would accuse (wanted to accuse) or would have accused (wanted to have accused) but the best (sounding most natural) is: It would have been anerror if I had accused him, so I didn't."....

I take this opportunity to say when I said I do nor think future in the past exists in English I should have said it does not uniquely exist in English. Your translation shows as I have said that Periodo Ipotetico is expressed in similar manners in English and Italian.